Comments on: Symposium on Originalism and the Jury http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/symposium-on-originalism-and-the-jury/ Commentary on law, public policy, and more Tue, 08 May 2012 01:46:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: » Scalia and Originalism bykathryn.com http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/symposium-on-originalism-and-the-jury/comment-page-1/#comment-692979 » Scalia and Originalism bykathryn.com Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:36:45 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21599#comment-692979 [...] Volokh comment on his (then) upcoming talk at Ohio Symposium on Jury and Originalism [...] [...] Volokh comment on his (then) upcoming talk at Ohio Symposium on Jury and Originalism [...]

]]> By: Tim http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/symposium-on-originalism-and-the-jury/comment-page-1/#comment-688519 Tim Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:25 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21599#comment-688519 Make sure you meet Dean Bruce Smith from the University of Illinois College of Law! He's there (thus why we have an alternate lecturer tomorrow in his class). He's a great guy. I'm sure you'll agree. Make sure you meet Dean Bruce Smith from the University of Illinois College of Law! He’s there (thus why we have an alternate lecturer tomorrow in his class).

He’s a great guy. I’m sure you’ll agree.

]]> By: DjDiverDan http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/symposium-on-originalism-and-the-jury/comment-page-1/#comment-688410 DjDiverDan Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:38:55 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21599#comment-688410 Given that the origin of the right to a jury trial, the Magna Carta, was at least in substantial part intended to allow juries to nullify unjust laws of the King, I find it hard to believe that Courts which have worked so hard to suppress jury nullification would ever be sanguine about returning the right to jury trial to its origins. Given that the origin of the right to a jury trial, the Magna Carta, was at least in substantial part intended to allow juries to nullify unjust laws of the King, I find it hard to believe that Courts which have worked so hard to suppress jury nullification would ever be sanguine about returning the right to jury trial to its origins.

]]> By: Soronel Haetir http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/symposium-on-originalism-and-the-jury/comment-page-1/#comment-688295 Soronel Haetir Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:57:45 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21599#comment-688295 The 7th amendment gets ignored all the time. Probably a good thing but even at the federal level it isn't taken seriously. The 7th amendment gets ignored all the time. Probably a good thing but even at the federal level it isn’t taken seriously.

]]> By: Josh Blackman http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/symposium-on-originalism-and-the-jury/comment-page-1/#comment-688262 Josh Blackman Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:03:35 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21599#comment-688262 Orin, Good luck at the Syposium. If possible, could you ask Justice Scalia about the point David made in this post http://volokh.com/posts/1246932856.shtml about <em>Crawford</em>. When applying all of the Criminal Procedure amendments to the states, including the Confrontation Clause, shouldn't the relevant originalist/historical inquiry be what the right meant in 1868, and not 1791? Orin, Good luck at the Syposium. If possible, could you ask Justice Scalia about the point David made in this post http://volokh.com/posts/1246932856.shtml about Crawford. When applying all of the Criminal Procedure amendments to the states, including the Confrontation Clause, shouldn’t the relevant originalist/historical inquiry be what the right meant in 1868, and not 1791?

]]> By: Fucius Pratum http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/symposium-on-originalism-and-the-jury/comment-page-1/#comment-688227 Fucius Pratum Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:07:19 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21599#comment-688227 Interesting issue. You may be aware of this, but for those playing at home: The High Court of Australia (our (Australia's) highest court) has dealt with this issue and, although it is not usually convinced by originalism, it used the original meaning of trial by jury to interpret our constitution. Thus we have a right to a unanimous verdict under the federal constitution, whereas our state courts have allowed majority verdicts for many years. The case is <em>Cheatle v The Queen</em> (1993) 177 CLR 541. Interesting issue. You may be aware of this, but for those playing at home: The High Court of Australia (our (Australia’s) highest court) has dealt with this issue and, although it is not usually convinced by originalism, it used the original meaning of trial by jury to interpret our constitution.

Thus we have a right to a unanimous verdict under the federal constitution, whereas our state courts have allowed majority verdicts for many years.

The case is Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541.

]]>